Am Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2004 21:11 schrieb Chris Karakas: > José Abílio Oliveira Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 19.10.04 19:16:13: > > I propose thus that all the configuration goes in the textclass, where it > > belongs in my humble opinion:
I agree. > Maybe from some standpoint it belongs there. But it is not user-friendly > to expect the user to tweak layout files, IMHO. IMHO if a user can modify his SGML declaration he can as well edit layout files. The nonexpert user will just use what is there: the standard SGML declaration and the standard layout file, and they should match. If e.g. SuSE decide to ship a modified SGML declaration, we can as well expect that they ship a modified layout file. > It all boils down to the question: do we do this through a dialog that will > manipulate the layout file, or do we expect the user who has such wishes to > be knowledgeable enough to know what he is looking for and start > tweaking the CNAME variable in some obsure file. Of course this should be documented. And who said that a graphical editor for layout files is a bad thing? > I find the first solution (which is what Andreas proposed) better. > > Maybe you are right - why should DocBook options belong to LyX dialogs? > But then, why should LyX mess up with DocBook options through > its ID mangling? As I see it, it is LyX which is trying to "do the Because most users are far less knowleadgable wrt docbook/sgml than you are. I understand that you want the expert power, but lyx should not only be friendly to experts, but also to less knowleadgable users. Georg
